Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

6 Firms Form Holographic Versatile Disc Alliance

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the say-that-3879-times-quickly dept.

Data Storage 325

gardolas writes "'Fuji Photo and CMC Magnentics are two of six companies, who have formed a consortium to promote HVD technology, which they say can be used to put 1TB of data onto just one disc. The consortium say that a HVD disc could hold about 200 standard DVD's, and transfer data at speeds 40 times that of DVD, about 1GB per second.' HVD is being seen as a possible successor to Blu-ray and HD-DVD technologies."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Arr (1, Interesting)

crummynz (818547) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585019)

How long before the xxAA guys shut this down as promoting piracy?

1TB...that's a lot of... (5, Funny)

ambelamba (771710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585020)

pr0n, of course. :D

Re:1TB...that's a lot of... (1)

dokebi (624663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585153)

Don't worry, Pfizer is readying their TD (Tera-dose) viagra bottle.

first? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585025)

how hard is it to get a first post?

Re:first? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585109)

apparently hard enough that i fail it

Can you say worthless? (2, Funny)

darklingchild (726827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585029)

Who on earth needs a terabyte of storage? And more importantly, Why would we want it on a non-hard disk. The massive storage would be so much better on a hard disk. I can't imagine wanting to carry a terabyte with me on a disk!

Re:Can you say worthless? (5, Insightful)

PMJ2kx (828679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585043)

Back in 1998, when IBM unvailed their 18GB hard drive, I asked the same thing. Now, 120GB is standard hard disk size. So, who knows...you might actually find a use for 1TB.

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585095)

I think the OP was pointing out this is 1TB of ROM not RAM [or disk... whatever]...

I could use a 1TB disk where I could random access it for read and writes... but just write once?

That aside... fucking super duper quadruple high res copies of no-plot cliche movies... that's progress!

Tom

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585108)

if you can write to it in a multisession fashion you can put multiple DVD movie disc image files on it and write them in batches, as you need room. It would be an excellent way to back up your movie collection. Used the same way, it would also be a fantastic method of storing security camera video in the long term.

Re:Can you say worthless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585045)

uncompressed video? or entir tv season on one disk or even and entire shows run on a disk

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

rekenner (849871) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585056)

Easy archival of long periods of TV broadcasting or radio broadcasting. Multiple channels over long periods, even. Archival of long periods of security taping. etc.

Re:Can you say worthless? (5, Insightful)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585066)

Oh, bah. I'm sure when the CD-ROM came out, people liked to roll their eyes at people filling up 540 MB of storage. Even TFA answers your argument, and does a damn good job of it IMHO:

If history is an indication, consumers will fill the disc up. High-definition broadcasting and gaming are also expected to add a heavy burden to existing home storage systems because of the size of the files. Two hours of HD programming takes up about 15GB to 25GB.

There you go, if we do a wholesale switch over to HD TV, finally a terabyte of storage doesn't seem that outlandish does it?

Re:Can you say worthless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585281)

We are already at a point where games and Linux distros require a full DVD. In 2 years time I went from a 6 gig 5400 RPM HDD to a machine with dual 80 gig HDD's on RAID 0. Maybe moving into the age of digital content, people will back 8 or 10 movies they have saved on the DVR to one disk. In 12 years a 1TB might still not be enough for peoples needs.

Re:Can you say worthless? (5, Insightful)

macklin01 (760841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585071)

Who on earth needs a terabyte of storage? And more importantly, Why would we want it on a non-hard disk. The massive storage would be so much better on a hard disk. I can't imagine wanting to carry a terabyte with me on a disk!

Anybody who does scientific work, for instance.

It's not hard to generate a few GB of data in a fluid mechanics simulation. People doing rendering (e.g., Pixar) also run into this ... -- Paul

Re:Can you say worthless? (or can you say stupid) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585073)

Umm....ever hear of non spinning backups?

Have you ever tried to deliver 15TB to a customer?

Either this is a troll or you don't believe we should have better than 8bit/16k machines.

You Forget Apple iHDTV 3D Holo-Garage Band (4, Funny)

CheeseburgerBlue (553720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585075)

To effectively use Apple iHDTV 3D Holo-Garage Band home studio with patented QuickTimeHolo technology, we recommend using a G14 computer with a one button psychic-cursor and at least fifty quadrillion golybits of RAM.

Re:Can you say worthless? (5, Funny)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585100)

Yes, but I assume you do want backups for your terabyte hard drive? And you are going to want to move large, but less frequently used files (HD home movies anybody?) off the drive.

On the other hand, watching somebody who just lost 1TB of data change colours like a chameleon would be interesting to watch.

Re:Can you say worthless? (4, Funny)

evilmousse (798341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585113)

-obviousquote-
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981
-/obviousquote-

Re:Can you say worthless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585120)

Did you take lessons on how to be an idiot?

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

truG33k (740973) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585123)

We said the same thing about our 3GB hard drive in 1990 something when they just came out. I remember a freind saying "3 gigs... you will never fill that", but tech changed and so did the space requirements. IMHO, I thinking too short term. You may want a TB disk once fiber reaches homes ;-)

Re:Can you say worthless? (0, Redundant)

Hobard (224548) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585146)

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."

Re:Can you say worthless? (4, Interesting)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585152)

I have TB hard drive for my simulations. if I want to back up my data, you suggest 200 DVDs?

this is progress. if you're so lacking in imagination that you can't think of a use for this then just remember that you are not psychic and don't know what secondary discoveries pursuing this technology will bring. when the electron was discovered how many people do you think knew how it would change our lives?

Re:Can you say worthless? (0, Redundant)

GtKincaid (820642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585167)

Who on earth needs more than 512K of ram ...

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

Paiway (842782) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585175)

Porn, duh.

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585194)

Don't worry about it ... the moderators got this one right for once: +2 Funny.

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

Chr0n0 (833566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585200)

Well, I think video editing and TV people can really use HVD when it comes out, especially if they are moving to digital storage. Which would you choose, 1 HVD disc or 1 big roll of film? :)

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

faderanger (856725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585209)

my music collection is currently spread out across hundreds of cds, badly organized in several binders. if i had TB disks i could back it all up on one or two. same goes for video files. as a visual artist who works with increasingly huge files, i would be happy to have gigantic storage on conveniently small disks.

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

Bradac_55 (729235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585305)

Can I ask why you haven't converted all of that to your favorite music/video format and store them on a decent SATA drive or array?

I'm streaming all of my music/TV/movie files from a dirt-cheap EPIA 1Gihz music server that is backed up to a separate NAS box along with all of our other 'must keep files'. I can't remember the last time I had to pull my CD collection out of the closet.

Re:Can you say worthless? (3, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585250)

People have been saying this with every storage advancement to date. I remember hearing it when I bought my first 12MB hard drive.

I would have thought by now people would learn and stop saying "why would anyone ever have a use for this, it is so much more than what we have now?".

Re:Can you say worthless? (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585251)

That's only 1800 CDs, at full WAV (uncompressed) - I've got over 2500, so I'd already need to carry 2 discs just for my music. It's only 200 DVDs, so many movie/game collections would barely fit. And that's at full 5" diameter, which dates from the early 1980s as a "handy" (floppy) format. To bring it down to modern convenience, we'd want 2" or 3" discs, which include the spindle-hole "overhead": now we're talking about 250GB per disc, up against those storage requirements already mentioned. 640KB ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585262)

I can certianly use 1 TB of storage!!!! Youve got to be kidding, right? I can definitely use 1 TB of storage per disk, this has unlimited applications and uses and will be vastly important and useable. A full length DVD movie can consume several gigabytes of storage space. Now consider a collection of hundreds of such movies, instead of having hundreds of DVDs lying around you can put it on a single holographic disk. Not to mention HDTV and the huge storage requirements of storing HDTV movies! THis technology isnt just useful, its desperately needed! And access and throughput should be fast, allowing for faster random data access.

Think about all of the uses this technology will have. This medium will likely last a lot longer than hard disks and other magnetic storage, so it will be great for archiving data. It would be quite useful as well for CVS like revision history type applications and other archive stores. It will also be crucial to video on demand services. One of the barriers to implementing more complete video on demand services where you can choose from selections of tens of thousands of movies and stored media from you TV and have it delivered over the wire in minutes has been the limitations of storage technology, video media has huge storage requirements so it has been difficult to offer large selections via video on demand services. This should make it much eisier to provide such services.

The useful applications of this technology will go on and on and people will benefit from having this capacity in their computers, and it would hopefully further drive down data storage costs.

This technology is long needed and we should be rejoicing.

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

cillasri (844440) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585267)

Remember when some "genius" said: Nobody will never need more than 640KB?

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

Columcille (88542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585332)

640k is enough for anyone.

Re:Can you say worthless? (1)

Columcille (88542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585358)

oops I was very VERY redundant. :)

Re:Can you say worthless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585343)

you could carry 200 dvd movies with you or 20 maybe in HD.

Re:Can you say worthless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585379)

transfer data at speeds 40 times that of DVD, about 1GB per second
40 times faster is "worthless" to you? Just because you don't have 1TB of data yet, we should ignore its other advantages? Look, people use DVDs. DVDs are not worthless. These guys are working on something that's like a DVD, but better. "Boring" maybe. "Uninspiring", sure. But "worthless"?

640K ought to be enough.. (1)

adeyadey (678765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585406)

Who on earth needs a terabyte of storage? "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates, 1981. Oh, and how about "Holographic pr0n"?

Who needs a terabyte of storage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585417)

YOU DO. You just don't realise it yet. Who would've thought that 1GB of memory would be normal back in 1990? But that'll be the norm very soon now. Likewise, 160GB hard drives, back when people were using audio cassettes for data?

The only reason 1 TB seems big is because it's bigger than the tiny personal storage systems we have now.

great (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585030)

now where's my holographic pr0n?

Where is..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585031)

Where is my Mr. Fusion?!

Is there DRM built-in? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585034)

I fear this new advance in storage will just enable greater and greater copyright infringement and rob hard working content producers of their deserved income.

I hope they have technology built in to thwart these evildoing pirates.

Re:Is there DRM built-in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585355)

Thats right. Terabyte storage is un-American. If you support Terabyte storage solutions you support terrorism.

A timeline is emerging? (4, Interesting)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585039)

Wow, from TFA:

HVD is a possible successor to technologies such as Blu-ray and HD DVD. Single layer Blu-ray discs hold about 25GB of data while dual-layer discs hold 50GB. Ordinary DVD discs, meanwhile, hold about 4.7GB. HVD technology will be pitched at corporations and the entertainment market, the HVD Alliance said.

Hmm, there's a format war going on with the Blu-ray and HD DVD, and they're already plotting the successor. Of course, they don't give a date in the article or anything firm at all, so perhaps it is a bit of a pipe dream. I must admit, I liked this quip from the article:

If history is an indication, consumers will fill the disc up.

Considering when I got my first computer, and the salesperson chuckled and said 'there was no way in hell I'd ever fill up a 40 megabyte hard drive', it's nice to see that people finally understand the capacity of users to fill up every nook and cranny of a storage medium!

Re:A timeline is emerging? (3, Insightful)

Marko DeBeeste (761376) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585126)

Economists call it "Marginal Propensity to Consume." Just think Field of Dreams. "If you build it, they will come."

Re:A timeline is emerging? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585184)

"If you build it, they will come."

Especially if you fill it with 1TB of pr0n

Re:A timeline is emerging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585368)

"m, there's a format war going on with the Blu-ray and HD DVD, and they're already plotting the successor"

Why don't they just skip Blu-ray and HD DVD and move onto this ?

Hard disk bottleneck (3, Interesting)

macklin01 (760841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585040)

Too bad that a hard disk would be nowhere near to keeping up with a 1GB/s transfer rate. Heck, IIRC (and please correct me if I don't!) RAM would have trouble keeping up with that ... -- Paul

Re:Hard disk bottleneck (3, Informative)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585072)

Well "technically" PC3200 means 3.2GB/sec. But yeah, in practice you only get [anywhere near that] that doing series of uninterrupted perfectly timed 8-byte writes to sequential memory...

Tom

Re:Hard disk bottleneck (1)

crummynz (818547) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585260)

That gives me a great idea of what to fill up my 1TB disk with, then!

Re:Hard disk bottleneck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585091)

Thats an order of magnitude faster than a PCI bus too.

Re:Hard disk bottleneck (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585111)

No, modern RAM has 6+GB/s of theoretical bandwidth, and even in real life conditions can usually handle significantly more than 1GB/sec.

Of course getting the data to the RAM might be a different story, SATA, SCSI, and even FiberChannel are all =360MB/sec these days.

But by the time we have HVDs that fast, I'm sure drive connection busses will have improved considerably.

Re:Hard disk bottleneck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585195)

To whoever rated that post "offtopic":

Hello, McFly??

Neither can these ... (3, Informative)

AlgoRhythm (701779) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585396)

according to TFA:

The consortium said an HVD disc could hold as much data as 200 standard DVDs and transfer data at over 1 gigabit per second, or 40 times faster than a DVD.

Holograph? (5, Funny)

drivinghighway61 (812488) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585048)

Help us Obi-Wan Kenobi! You're our only hope...

That's how it works (Re:Holograph? ) (2, Informative)

helioquake (841463) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585179)

I heard about this new technology a few years ago. I didn't realize it is about to be commercialized...

Anyway, the parent poster's example on Star Wars has it right. Basically the projected holograph at a different angle (or viewed at different angle) shows a different holographic pattern (i.e., from the front, you can see the princess's face. But from behind, her arse).

The different angle of the incident beam generates a different look of interference map, which in turn translated to bits. It doesn't seem too far off that you can hold "Library of Congress" in a tiny data cube between your finger tips...

PS. Do I want it? Sure. I have 1TB data of my own at work. It'd be nice to back them all up at once.

Re:That's how it works (Re:Holograph? ) (1)

crummynz (818547) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585299)

Basically the projected holograph at a different angle (or viewed at different angle) shows a different holographic pattern (i.e., from the front, you can see the princess's face. But from behind, her arse).

*grin* Bwahaha... anyone else see Thumb Wars? :)

Can't wait for the Digital Restrictions Managment (4, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585051)

No doubt their top priority will be figuring out all the ways to prevent their customers from from using these disks in the way they want to use them. "Can't pause that there" "Can't watch that on that device" "No fast-forwarding through that" "Can't watch this in that country" ...

Remember when technology used to be about enabling people, rather than disabling them?

Re:Can't wait for the Digital Restrictions Managme (2, Insightful)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585231)

And with 1TB of data to work with, they could make a movie look different and act differently in every country.

For the rest of us, 1TB is a lot of pr0n, or hundreds of Linux distributions.

Re:Can't wait for the Digital Restrictions Managme (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585362)

The "problem" they are trying to combat is not that they want the movies to look and behave different in different countries, it's that they want to be able to produce 500 prints of the film, show it in America, and then ship the second hand prints over to other countries to show in the cinemas. (Cinema prints are very very expensive to produce, it's cheeper to do it this way). They then want to release the DVD in America while it's still showing in cinemas in the rest of the world, and not wanting to lose sales of cinema tickets they don't want the rest of the world buying the disk.

Don't get me wrong, I think they're a load of money grubbing bastards for doing that, but I'm jsut saying that that's the reason for them doing it - not the DVDs looking or behaving differently.

CMC Magnentics? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585068)

From the spell-checkers-are-overrated department...

200 dvds ? (4, Funny)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585069)

The consortium say that a HVD disc could hold about 200 standard DVD's,

That means nothing to me, can someone covert that into a more practical measurement like Libraries Of Congress (LoC) ?.

1/10th of a LoC (3, Informative)

seizer (16950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585110)

The LoC is normally quoted at 10tb [techtarget.com] .

Re:200 dvds ? (1)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585161)

Screw that. I need it in terms of how many elephants lined up in a row. My favorite I heard on the discovery channel one was how many 5' 8" woman standing on top of each other. They could have simply said 8 stories high as most people have been to a city, but not see a bunch of woman standing on top of each other. I love how numbers are converted to abstract ideas that are more difficult to understand than if they just said what they actually were. Once terabyte, I can relate to that that since I have a 160 GB disk.

LoC? I've never been there.

Re:200 dvds ? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585346)

Yes, funny units. My biology teacher elaborated how incredibly huge amount of data is contained in human genome, how awfully many pages of books it would take to write it down. I recalculated that and found it would fit on 2 CDs leaving some spare place.

Souvenirs (2, Funny)

FiReaNGeL (312636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585089)

I remember, back when I bought my first computer, I had the choice between a 25 and 50 megs Harddrive. The sales rep said :

"Choose the 25 megs one, NO ONE will EVER need this much storage!"

Guess what : Needs increase with time and technology. I'm sure if this tech get released after Blueray that we will have a way to fill up 1 TB without thinking too much about it.

Now what we REALLY need is a PERMANENT way of storing data.

Re:Souvenirs (1)

rekenner (849871) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585117)

We could make planets into recordable surfaces... Just make the entire surface even and burn holes into the surface with a laser... CDs on a scale billions of times larger. Now all we have to do is figure out how to stop erosion/volcanic motion/etc.

Re:Souvenirs (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585323)

Well, regular Compact Discs are redundant enough to withstand a couple millimeter scratch, supposedly. We'll just have to put enough redundancy and error-detection and correction into it so that we'll have a reasonable media life. That, and make the laser pits be large enough to survive for a decent time. Most likely you wouldn't want to use a planetary body with an atmosphere and ecosystem, though. Something completely airless and relatively static would be a better choice. Still, it seems to me that, in the long term, small-scale such as asteroidal impacts, vulcanism and erosion may prove to be less of a problem than continental drift.

That might make the basis of an interesting sci-fi story, whereupon a barren planet with no atmosphere is discovered. This planet would have bizarre patterns of what appear to be meteor impacts all over its surface. The long-dead civilization that built the world-memory would have written the data by accelerating chunks of rock at the surface, rather than using a laser or particle beam. This would have been done in an attempt to mask their real purpose by making them appear to have been meteoritic in origin. Eventually, a brilliant yet eccentric scientist working on his own time would accidentally discover that the "impact craters" are actually data bits, and the decoding of them would reveal some incredible galaxy-wide event that is about to occur.

If anyone decides to write this I want to be mentioned in the foreword, and I want 10% of any royalties.

Already there. (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585315)

Uncompressed movies.
3D raster images (based on "particles", not vectors - photorealistic 3D scenery for games)
Complete backups (instead of incremental)
Multi-DVD albums
Data like global maps, global phonebooks etc.
Same old contents, smaller disks (half-inch DVDs anyone?)
Single-use encryption keys.

I call bullshit! (1)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585351)

No salesperson would ever try to talk you out of spending more money!

Re:I call bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585405)

Yes they would. That way they gain your confidence and get to sell to you again and again

So depressing (3, Insightful)

lo0ol (799434) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585098)

Does anyone else find this horrendously depressing that they're already plotting the next format? Sure makes me frown on buying anything new in the Blu-ray/HD-DVD format. :\

Re:So depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585149)

yeah,lol, it is amazing that technology becomes obsolete before it even gets to market...

Re:So depressing (1)

ozric99 (162412) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585180)

I understand where you're coming from but what's the alternative? Everyone using Mac LCIIs with a 20MB hard drive and a couple of floppy drives? Technology moves on. Don't let the marketing droids blind you to what the geeks are doing.

Re:So depressing (2, Insightful)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585187)

When CD-ROMs started getting reasonably common for PCs, there were plans for DVDs. Maybe you were happy because you haven't heard of them, but they were planned. That's pretty normal.

Re:So depressing (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585386)

You do realise they were planning PS3 when PS2 came out? These companies make money by upgrades. You don't release a product without thinking of what's next. Same with software.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years time DNA-based computers become a reality, but companies hide this fact and continue to loose electronics until they can't make anymore improvements. Only then will the upgrade to DNA-based computers be made.

Good Lord (4, Funny)

ArmenTanzarian (210418) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585124)

If they made the LOTR chronicles 1TB long, I think I'd have to get another job just to be bored enough to watch them.

Acronym confusion (2, Informative)

mike5904 (831108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585128)

Technically, the article stated that the transfer rates would be up to one gigabit per second, not 1 GB per second, as the summary states. That's certainly fast, but not beyond the capabilities of current hard disk/memory technology.

Re:Acronym confusion (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585203)

Is there really any "single" hard drive being able to give 125 Mbytes/sec out of anything but the cache? Isn't current SATA topping out at 150? But it's certainly in the same "range" instead of an order of magnitude better.

But.... (4, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585132)

But will they put some kind of protection around the disk similar to 3.5 Floppies or MiniDiscs? That's my one big beef about CDs. They're so fragile. I'm careful, but one false move can really mess them up. If you can fit so much on a disc, make them smaller, 2 inch diameter? but make them protected.

Re:But.... (2, Insightful)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585230)

What kind of damage to a CD do you have in mind? No matter how "protected" 3.5 (or 5.25) disks were, the failure rate per disk was, IMHO, far higher, and if we count failures per byte it just gets silly. Of course, this is when the ECC of the optical formats is taken into consideration. If you want protection, I think I prefer separate cases any day, but I wouldn't call a CD fragile. (BTW, what do you think makes them so damn cheap to manufacture that AOL can shell out loads?)

Re:But.... (1)

Bonhamme Richard (856034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585352)

Keep the disk in a case when not in use, and put a d-skin on it http://www.d-skin.com/home.html. [d-skin.com] The case will keep it from being snapped in half, and the d-skin will keep it from scratching.

My only question is how much will this cost? Even if the disk itself is cheap, the content would be incredible. How much would it be to buy 200 movies, even if they are on the same disk?

Now that's an error message! (5, Funny)

greypilgrim (799369) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585143)

"A tiny speck of dust has crossed the beam and 4gb of data have been lost." The bigger they get, they harder they fall.

Re:Now that's an error message! (1)

helioquake (841463) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585213)

Hey, I remember talking exactly like that in late 80s.

Except that it was when a "CD-ROM" came about and the data volume was about 4Mb, instead.

[I'm being sarcastic]

But will it be archival? (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585151)

The recent /, story on media longevity [slashdot.org] highlights the growing problem of decomposing data-layers on current generation optical disk technology. This new disk, with its even higher density, would seem to be even more likely to suffer from longevity problems.

Perhaps the xxAA has nothing to worry about -- media buying customers will lose access to copied data through dye-decomposition sooner than through expiring DRM licenses.

Re:But will it be archival? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585228)

At 1TB/disk you can afford a lot of redundancy. Decrease data density to 10%, the medium will remain readable after ages, and at 100GB/disk it's still reasonable backup/archive medium.

Re:But will it be archival? (1)

Ed_1024 (744566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585282)

Yes, exactly. If you had 1TB of important data to back up, would you be happy sticking it all on one disc and hoping the dye held out? Also, a rough calculation gives 22 1/2 hours to fill one of these at the published burn rates. (1TB @ 1Gb/s).

Sounds good to me... (1)

jwcorder (776512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585191)

I know one thing for sure...I am going to need a bigger pipe. Yeah both kinds....

outdated even before it's out (1)

kevin-cs-edu (854636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585216)

"HVD is being seen as a possible successor to Blu-ray and HD-DVD technologies." Advances in storage tech are being released so quickly, that they become "obsoleted" even before they come out! (HD-DVD and Blu-ray aren't really widespread yet, and they're already out-moded...)

We now only need (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585218)

a holographic projector (not the star trek thing, mind you) and we'd be able to watch holographic movies...just one way to use 1TB of storage, it may be even not enough.

yawn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11585247)

Only 1 TB... write once... lame.

This is good .... (1)

Dan9999 (679463) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585269)

because then we can purchase non-lossy compressed 1080p movies that will be too large to download. A second reason to purchase movies other than the "I like to sleep at night" reason. Ya right, as if the media industry will ever figure out that non-lossy compressed movies is the best way to get most people who download to buy the media.

Less hole (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585270)

While they're increasing the density in a new format, how about making the spindle hole and clampable hub a lot smaller? Throw this density at a 1" disc, and a CD/DVD hole/hub will eat most of the usable area. Let's have a 1mm hole/hub, and use the whole medium. And while we're at it, let's finally get doublesided drives (without flipping discs): they've been promising doublesided media since DS/DD 5.25" floppies, and we're still waiting.

magnetoptical (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585300)

How about a multilayer, "multiphysics" disc? Lay down several optical layers readable by focusable laser. Beneath them, a magnetic layer readable by HD heads. We might be able to get over 50% more capacity, without needing greater areal density. With doublesided discs, and pinhole spindle hubs [slashdot.org] , we might be looking at 2" discs with 1TB capacity.

time for lossless video compression (2)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585317)

IIRC uncompressed video requires at least 80GB/hour. So a two hour movie would require over 160 GB if you want to completely avoid compression artifacts. There are also lossless video compression algorithms like HuffyYUV (anyone have a link?) which allows for around 2:1 compression without any loss in quality. So that 160 GB movie would only be 80 GB. Also don't forget that storing the audio in uncompressed PCM or a losslessly compressed format like FLAC would also add to the storage requirements.

I am not sure if higher resolution film transfers would increase the storage requiremtents even further. I assume it would. So this tech may only be somewhat overkill.

Attention span of humans 50 mins, 40 mins, 30.. (4, Insightful)

NigelJohnstone (242811) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585327)

Isn't it funny, the CD was approximately the same as a record with 40-70 minutes of music, the attention span of a human in the 1980s. Past that and nobody listened to the record the whole way through.

Now we can save 200 hours of video but have 5 minute attemtion spans because of all the distractions, TV etc..

Ironic isn't it?

I wonder what they plan to record on that disc.

Add a flexible layer of hw gen. redundancy data. (3, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585339)

It'd be cool if they could put in a function in the hardware that would calculate and fill out the media with [standardized] redundancy data. You'd want it do be done in hardware to be fast, compatible and not generate unneccesary bus traffic.

Basically, the burn software would feature a '[X] Fill out with redundancy data and finalize disc'-option box together with the '[X] Finalize disc' one.

I've sometimes done this by hand [par2.net] , but it takes forever to calculate the data, and you don't get it properly distributed over the disc, etc, etc. I think it'd be better done in hardware.

Guess there's no hope though, it'd up the cost a dollar, and we all know that's just impossible to bear. <sigh>

Finaly!!! (0, Redundant)

orion41us (707362) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585376)

..I can store all my Pr0n on one disk!

1 GB/sec is nice and all . . . . (1)

theparanoidcynic (705438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585391)

But unless we get hard drive (or equivilent) that can support average transfer rates faster than that we're gonna have some problems.

(Bus throughput probably won't be an issue. SCSI will probably be moving 1 GB/sec in five years.)

While higher and higher capacities are exciting... (4, Funny)

sirReal.83. (671912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585393)

You just know the PHBs will still use an entire disc to walk a 37KB spreadsheet thirty feet down the hall ;)

Reliable? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#11585404)

I remember reading about this in 2002. The problem was aligning the beam in the correct spot to read the data. If it was off just a little bit it completely missed the data. Has the error margin been increased?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?